In defence of Rotorways.
What's interesting about this thread, and most crewroom/flying club discussions about Rotorways is that in general the overall view is to stay away from them. The accident statistics alone would lead most people to this course of action.
What I cannot accept however, is that with the exception of one person on this thread, no-one has even hovered a Rotorway and most have probably never even seen one in the flesh. Yet, like sheep, peolple continue to make derogatory remarks. What's also interesting is that if any other aircraft was going to get disparaged (take the R22 for example) there would be a band of supporters who'd defend it vociferously. So why not the Rotorway?
There are several good reasons why people don't stick up for the Rotorway:
- the vast majority of people have never seen one, let alone flown in one, so are unlikely to stand in its defence.
- of the few (Brits) I know that fly Rotorways, few post on here.
- many Rotorway owners know the limitations of the helicopter and fly it accordingly, they know it's kit built and don't try to compare it with an R22 in terms of reliability or funtionality - they leave the comparisons for the ill-informed.
- there seems to be a stigma attached to the Rotorway caused by the type of comments that have appeared on this thread, so few people will voluntarily stick their head above the parapet.
So let me try and clear up a few misconceptions (and I will make comparisons to the R22 as this is what the mojority of this audience will be able to relate to):
1. The Rotorway is a kit built helicopter - designed on a budget for enthusiasts that enjoy weilding a spanner as much as gripping a cyclic.
2. The Rotorway has almost identical performance to an R22 - if the R22 is operated in accordance with the the Flight Manual limitations. (The difference is, no-one flies the R22 within the factory prescribed Limit Manifold Pressure. It's just systematically ignored at all levels from basic stude right up to CAA examiners).
3. The Rotorway has very forgiving autorotation characteristics and plenty of time to lower the lever if the engine quits. RRPM control in auto is easy.
4. It has a smooth rotor system; when correctly balanced.
5. It is stable in the hover and forward flight and can often be flown 'hands off' if correctly set-up.
6. When hovered in a cross-wind it is a doddle to maintain a steady heading, just like proper helicopters should be.
7. The Exec162F has a sophisticated fuel injection and engine management system so Carb Heat doesn't exist and malfunctions can be tracked, identified and easily rectified.
What lets the Rotorway down:
1. They're built by amateurs who range from someone you wouldn't let loose to put up a shelf through to highly experienced Formula One engineers. Consequently, build quality is patchy.
2. The engine valve train is basic and requires careful monitoring and adjustment every 25hrs (1/2 hour job if you know what you're doing).
3. The Secondary drive-shaft has suffered from several premature failures as a result of flawed design or installation. Rotorway have reportedly fixed this problem with the upgraded 35mm shaft provided the factory chain drive is used.
4. If they're not balanced properly, and many aren't, they can feel crude and unrefined.
I don't think people should lose sight of what the Rotorway is - a home-built helicopter. It's great fun and relatively affordable to fly but they need regular TLC if you want to rely on them. In fact the R22/Rotorway comparison isn't dissimilar to a C152/Kitfox one.
One final request. If you've never flown one before, please don't give advice about something you probably know nothing about. (I don't comment on S76 threads because I've never flown one but I'd happily give advice on Pumas, A109s or Ec120 for example). If you feel the urge to make comments, do yourself a favour and get behind the sticks of a Rotorway and prepare to be suprised! They're great fun and a whole lot better than most would have you believe.
J